foster children removed for being UKIP members

(103 Posts)
EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 09:21:25

story here

it seems there were no other reasons. placement otherwise working well.

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 09:46:09

no takers? they're already talking about it on Netmums

though my husband thinks this is because they aren't hungover.

this is one rare moment where i actually give some credence to something said by Nigel Farrage, ie that it spoke more of bias on the part of social services than on the part of the foster parents.

ilikefestivitea Sat 24-Nov-12 09:47:53

I would be willing to.bet there is alot more to.this story. As all these stories, the couple can say whatever they like. SS can't show.all their information due to confidentiallity.

raininginbaltimore Sat 24-Nov-12 09:49:06

Seems strange. I teach children whose foster caters leaflet for the bnp. Not saying that is right, just that surely they are more extreme than Ukip.

Catsmamma Sat 24-Nov-12 09:52:18

it just seems odd that these people are allowed to continue being foster carers if they are so unsuitable.

I'd lay money on a massive over reaction by the social services tbh.

Load of shite, there will be other reasons. I could sort of understand if it was the BNP but Ukip are too legitimate a party for that to be the reason.

There's a sentence about UKIP I never thought I'd write grin

bottersnike Sat 24-Nov-12 09:55:14

I was just about to link to this story, you got there first!
It does raise the question of whether social services should check the political views of potential foster carers.
It also, unfortunately, gives the impression that SS were more concerned about the "cultural matching" (horrible phrase) of the children and foster parents than the stability of the placement and happiness of the children.
I can understand that if there were concerns about the long-term success of the placement given justifiable, proven facts about the foster parents' views, political or otherwise, it might be right to remove the children. I'm just not sure that that was the case here.
As it is front-page news, I'm sure more will be revealed over the next few days. Let's hope it isn't another example of an ill thought-out, knee-jerk reaction from social services.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 09:57:45

It's not just because of what party they belong to its to do with the party hold extreme views and are not pro multi culture and the foster dc are not white so ss feel they shouldn't be placed with people that are pro white. Makes sense actually.

noddyholder Sat 24-Nov-12 09:58:39

I thought it was becasue of the ethnicity of the children and their UKIP status

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 10:02:25

Could you imagine being sent to live with a family that didn't like white people and subtly made it clear. It would be awful for the dc to live like that. I'm glad ss have moved them.

noddyholder Sat 24-Nov-12 10:05:14

Me too I think its progress tbh

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 10:55:56

the social services said there was absolutely no problem with the care on offer.

they clearly stated they would still place other children with these people.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:03:04

UKIP are opposed to non-whites?

Someone should tell this guy:

insidecroydon.com/2012/04/24/croydon-questions-winston-mckenzie-ukip/

IME non-whites are often more opposed to immigration than whites.

A good 'bonkers social workers' story as far as I'm concerned.

I think we all need a pantomime villain to laugh at.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:03:24

Having only the "facts" as told on the radio news, I can see SS's point. Can the needs of immigrant children be best served by foster carers who believe immigration is damaging to the UK?

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:04:44

It's fairly unlikely that the children are immigrants.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:04:49

UKIP are opposed to non-whites?

No, they believe immigration is damaging to the UK. Race is not the problem, just whether you are British I think. That is how I understood it but I cold be wrong!

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:06:06

It's fairly unlikely that the children are immigrants.

Oh so what does the phrase "These children are not UK children" in then news report mean?

QuickLookBusy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:06:44

The children are non British.

I think the council made the correct decision.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:07:02

They have to have other ethnicity's as the law says, even bnp pull out a black guy to show they aren't racist every now and again. Are you a ukip member Joan? Do you appose immigration and hope all the immigrants go back to their own country's.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:09:53

Ooh, a purity test.

No I am not a UKIP member nor have I ever voted for them.

Nor for the BNP.

Have you mugged any old ladies lately?

Nancy66 Sat 24-Nov-12 11:11:39

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:24:44

I'm sure the bnp would love to have you in their ranks you sound like a vile person. Why an earth would you try and insult me asking if im mugging old ladies. Maybe you don't realise I'm white and parents are quite middle class.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:26:29

It should be abundantly clear btw that Rotherham's specific vision of multiculturalism is actively harmful to children. They are absolutely not in a position to make these pronouncements given their own record of harm DIRECTLY caused by their multicultural zealotry (and that's not a description of multiculturalism generally, but of Rotherham's specific approach).

"Revealing the fears over the racial element to the abuse, a 2010 report from the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board said the crimes had ‘cultural characteristics ... which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’, but warned of ‘sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships’."

"Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham, said: ‘There’s a culture here of denial and cover-up and a refusal to accept the reality that we have men living in the Rotherham community who treat young girls as objects for their sexual pleasure. It’s time to tell the truth. We must root out this evil.’"

"Laura Wilson, 17, had been groomed by a string of men before she was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers' families of the sexual relationships.
Her killer Ashtiaq Asghar, who was 18 at the time, was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Laura in October 2010.
But it emerged in June that Rotherham Council's social services were well aware she was at risk and had received information about certain adults suspected of targeting her from the age of 11."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207756/Police-turned-blind-eye-South-Yorkshire-sex-grooming-gangs-decade.html

www.itv.com/news/calendar/2012-09-24/a-decades-worth-of-sexual-exploitation-ignored-in-south-yorkshire/

"In one case, a white girl who was sexually abused by an Asian gang from the age of 12 was offered lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by her local council after her ordeal, to "try to engage her in education"."

So in fact Rotherham are in no position to lecture others about multiculturalism with respect to the care of children.

SminkoPinko Sat 24-Nov-12 11:27:13

I think it sounds quite a complex situation. As long as the children's needs have been put first I don't have a problem with the couple's political views being taken into account. I would have thought that there are situations where fairly mainstream political/ethical/religious views could have a massive impact on particular children and this may well be one of them. I wouldn't want a gay teen placed with a couple who were opposed to homosexuality on deeply held religious grounds, for example, no matter how lovely and caring the couple were otherwise. And fully paid up members of UKIP may very well not be the right carers for many children. Look at this policy and imagine how you'd feel if you were a non-British foster child of someone espousing these views. As a matter of fact, I personally would not be happy if my white British children were fostered by people who had such views.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 11:27:18

And only lower-than-middle class non-whites mug old ladies do they?

confused

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:29:15

Yes those stories are in exactly the same vain as ss making a decision that benefits the dc.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:29:49

InNeedOfBrandy, perhaps you should lay off the brandy. At least before noon.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:30:15

Im not really sure what the old lady mugging comments meant soup

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:31:10

Maybe you should lay of the insults, it won't make your views come across any better.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:31:31

I would not be happy with my children being fostered by Rotherham Council full stop, given their execrable record on child protection. They've got quite some gall.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 11:39:50

You started off with the insults, InNeedOfBrandy.

Perhaps don't dish it out if you can't take it.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 11:45:09

No I asked if you were a member since you were so quick to link a black member of ukip to show they aren't racist. No personal insults asking if you mug old lady's or to stop drinking. The way you are so defensive makes me think you at a member/vote/agree with these far right extreme groups and you haven't changed my mind with the few stories of white girls being attacked by different ethnicity's.

SminkoPinko Sat 24-Nov-12 11:46:43

I agree with you that Rotherham has had many problems in this area, JB. The evidence on that one is recent and clear. But this does not necessarily mean they are wrong here IF they have taken the decision on the particular circumstances of the case for these children and put their interests first. That is what they are supposed to do, after all, and what they failed to do for the teenagers in the cases you have cited.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 12:01:20

InNeedOfBrandy

No I asked if you were a member since you were so quick to link a black member of ukip to show they aren't racist. No personal insults asking if you mug old lady's or to stop drinking.

What joanbyers was doing here was pointing out that your reaction was an aggressive one. You were attempting to accuse her of being a member, and since your attitude towards UKIP is so negative, you were attempting to insult her. She was reciprocating.

You were using a loaded question along the lines of 'Whend did you stop beating your wife', which automatically implies wrongdoing.

UKIP are a legal political party. Their views are legal even if some extremists may not like the idea of a country which puts British people (of whatever colour) first.

The way you are so defensive makes me think you at a member/vote/agree with these far right extreme groups and you haven't changed my mind with the few stories of white girls being attacked by different ethnicity's.

Which far right extreme groups? If you think that UKIP is 'far right extreme' then I suggest you are so far round the left-wing bend you couldn't poke the centre with a long pole.

SminkoPinko

I agree with you that Rotherham has had many problems in this area, JB. The evidence on that one is recent and clear. But this does not necessarily mean they are wrong here IF they have taken the decision on the particular circumstances of the case for these children and put their interests first. That is what they are supposed to do, after all, and what they failed to do for the teenagers in the cases you have cited.

They are supposed to do that, yes. The contention here is that it is impossible for people who object to multiculturalism to adequately care for and love non-white children. It's a pignorant contention based upon a total ignorance of what multiculturalism really is.

Multiculturalism isn't everyone getting along snugly and in a lovely way and all being friends. Multiculturalism means everyone sticking to their own cultures and living in the same country. The old word for it was ghettoisation.

OneHandFlapping Sat 24-Nov-12 12:05:18

Being opposed to unlimited future immigration is NOT the same either being a) racist, or b) anti multi-culturalism.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 12:11:24

I don't think, SminkoPinko that this shows a positive change in Rotherham Council's attitudes They failed to act, over 16 years, despite warnings since 1996, and they specifically cited concerns about multiculturalism in not doing so.

As such, their attitudes in this area (viz. multiculturalism) are clearly highly suspect.

PieEyedAndLairy Sat 24-Nov-12 12:13:04

But they are anti multi-culturalism OneHandFlapping

According to the BBC news report:

One of UKIP's immigration policies is to "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and to leave the European Union (EU)

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 12:16:50

I think you can distinguish between being opposed to the 'active promotion' of multiculturalism by local government, and being opposed to multiculturalism.

Clearly the 'active promotion of multiculturalism' in Rotherham has harmed children.

2old2beamum Sat 24-Nov-12 12:35:55

I have no time for Rotherham SS they let our son down by leaving him with a mother who was incapable of looking after him. But I feel they have made the right decision in this case Feel it is similar of placing me (jewish) with the BNP

TheEnthusiasticTroll Sat 24-Nov-12 12:46:11

One hand flapping, there policy states "end support for multi cultural ism and promote one common uk culture" that's pretty much evident of anti multi culture

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 12:47:16

PieEyedAndLairy

But they are anti multi-culturalism OneHandFlapping

According to the BBC news report:

One of UKIP's immigration policies is to "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and to leave the European Union (EU)

Good. Multiculturalism is a wicked, divisive policy which sets groups of cultures against one another. If you are from country B with culture B and live in country A, then you shouldn't expect to bring your culture and keep it unchanged in country A. That goes as much for English expats on the Costa del Crime as it does Somalian migrants in east London.

I agree with quick they didn't say you're no longer foster careers, they said those children are not right for you, yes mabe it was seven weeks late but they eventually made the right decision. They will probs still be foster careers in the future (if they sit down and shush up) hmm

alemci Sat 24-Nov-12 12:51:44

yes but the individual people who are fostering probably only think the concept of the UKIP is sensible not all the small print.

if they have a good fostering record and are caring, kind people isn't that the main thing?

You may have fosterers who are pro multi culturalism or say the right things and are not necessarily good foster parents.

also what is so bad about promoting a one common Uk culture anyway. don't think that much of multi culturalism anyway.

You make a sensible point about immigration pro hand clapping and you probably find people from ethnic minorities feel the same way about our open border policy of late.

SoupDragon Sat 24-Nov-12 12:58:13

Im not really sure what the old lady mugging comments meant soup

Actually, inneedofbrandy I was commenting on your need to reply to the mugging comment with the statement that you were white middle class.

mercibucket Sat 24-Nov-12 13:01:27

So long as they go after all the tory voters too. After all, who is it who goes on about targets, reducing immigration, sending back failed asylum seekers. Oh yes, that'd be the tory party.
It is a ridiculous decision and I hope they get pulled up on it
From those other links, something is going badly wrong in rotherham council/social services/policing

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 13:04:22

and labour - who have also targetted immigration.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 13:04:35

My statement about that was the way the mugging comment was wrote seemed to me that she assumed I wasn't white or I was of the underclass.

This thread has derailed it isn't about the immigration bullshit ukip sprout it's about SS making a decision based on the bullshit ukip sprout and why they feel these child immigrants should not be living with them. IMO it seems they gave these people a chance (7/8 weeks)and it was not working so removed dc in their interests. They are obviously not a match for strong believers against what these children are.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 13:05:06

MadameOneSword

I agree with quick they didn't say you're no longer foster careers, they said those children are not right for you, yes mabe it was seven weeks late but they eventually made the right decision. They will probs still be foster careers in the future (if they sit down and shush up) hmm

So it is, in your view, legitimate to discriminate against someone if you don't like their political views.

I wonder how many people here would feel the same way if it was their views which were being discriminated against. How about if we made a new law which said nobody who listens to Radio 4 and reads the Guardian can vote. That would bring us blessed relief from the pious hand-wringers who fill the airwaves with their ill-thought-out pseudo-leftist tripe.

alemci

You make a sensible point about immigration pro hand clapping and you probably find people from ethnic minorities feel the same way about our open border policy of late.

IIRC (and it's been a while since I read the survey) there was a survey which indicated non-white British people feel exactly the same about our unlimited immigration policy as white British people.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 13:05:51

Oh and you don't need to be far left to disagree with racist anti anyone who isn't white british type of party.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 13:12:35

InNeedOfBrandy

Oh and you don't need to be far left to disagree with racist anti anyone who isn't white british type of party.

Oh, I agree. There are all sorts of extremist fellow-travellers who follow the far-leftists, along with a few people who are so blinkered and bigoted they're incapable of recognising reality.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 13:26:58

Flatpack you have just contradicted yourself

Which far right extreme groups? If you think that UKIP is 'far right extreme' then I suggest you are so far round the left-wing bend you couldn't poke the centre with a long pole. And yes the majority of people do believe ukip is a far right party and a diluted version of the BNP.

joanbyers Sat 24-Nov-12 13:29:42

The majority of which people?

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 13:30:21

InNeedOfBrandy

Flatpack you have just contradicted yourself

No I haven't.

And yes the majority of people do believe ukip is a far right party and a diluted version of the BNP.

No they don't. You and your rich Islington mates might think that, but you think that about anyone to the right of Pol Pot.

InNeedOfBrandy Sat 24-Nov-12 13:34:57

joanbyers the voters obviously thats why they are not in gov now or even the opposition.

And yes you have, flatpack but whatever. Making up and adding "friends" onto a point does not make a good argument/or personal insults joan.

flatpackhamster Sat 24-Nov-12 13:37:20

InNeedOfBrandy

joanbyers the voters obviously thats why they are not in gov now or even the opposition.

That's a curious ignorance of the First Past the Post voting system that you have there. Maybe I'll just plonk it next to your ignorance of UKIP and your ignorance of what multiculturalism actually is, and we can all judge you based on that.

And yes you have, flatpack but whatever.

No really. Show me how I've contradicted myself.

chipstick10 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:11:48

The family have been fostering for over seven years and their record is said to be exemplary. I am speechless. It's shocking.

chipstick10 Sat 24-Nov-12 14:13:22

Also the social services have said the family were caring for the children very well. Shouldn't that overcome everything else.?

alemci Sat 24-Nov-12 14:40:25

exactly but lets discriminate against some more people who don't quite sing from the same hymn sheet as wonderful all knowing what is best for every child Rotherham council.

AmberLeaf Sat 24-Nov-12 15:00:16

I agree with the decision totally.

Ive also never met a supporter of UKIP who wasn't racist, even if they pretended not to be.

No they don't. You and your rich Islington mates might think that, but you think that about anyone to the right of Pol Pot

Ha ha! I love those silly assumptions you make.

Do you think its only idealistic rich middle class people that hold those opinions?

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 15:04:13

i would be amazed if in seven years of fostering these were the first non-uk or non-white children they had fostered.

if they would allow their political views to colour their treatment of children, would this be the case?

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 15:05:25

the BNP is a socialist party with anti-immigration views.

UKIP is an economically liberal (so, right-wing) party with anti immigration views.

Pixel Sat 24-Nov-12 16:51:38

Load of shite, there will be other reasons. SS woman on the radio earlier said there was nothing wrong with the way the children were being looked after.
These people have been foster parents for years, I imagine they have looked after no end of children from different ethnic backgrounds but there has been no problem until now. Also I wonder how likely racists would be to want to foster 'ethnic' children? If they have been covering up racist tendencies they have obviously done an excellent job of it up until now hmm.

How dare social services dictate to people how they can vote? UKIP are a legitimate political party and people are allowed to vote for them if they want, it being a democracy and all.
Apart from making sure children are cared-for and happy they should keep their noses out. No wonder there are so few children finding adoptive homes nowadays if you can be so easily rejected by the thought police.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Sat 24-Nov-12 17:27:25

They seek to aspire to one brutish culture how is that not divisive as a policy. How can people who subscribe that, which is not small print, by the way, but a very clear and dominant aspect of their policy actual think they are able meet and represent the needs for those children in the long run. I can understand why in emergency measures it was good enough, but in in the long term care of the children not that I would agree as my personal views are that they should not be foster carers full stop, but I can see and understand that.

I just wonder really what one British culture they seek to aspire to? As I don't think there is one culture even within indigenous British people.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Sat 24-Nov-12 17:28:24

They aren't dictating who they can vote for, they are saying the long term needs of these children can't be met by your self due to a difference of interest.

niceguy2 Sat 24-Nov-12 18:21:56

It's political correctness gone mad and I'm not surprised to see which regulars instantly think this is a rational decision.

I completely agree with Pixel. If this was a racist couple, why would they foster non-white children? If they were racists, there must be easier ways to earn money than look after children who have a skin colour you hate and then do so to an 'exemplary' level.

Troll, which 'long term need' does being a member of UKIP make them incapable of performing? A child's education? Discipline? A loving home?

It reminds me of a friend of mine training to be a childminder. When OFSTED came to inspect her, they said she lacked 'multicultural toys'. So as a non-white myself she called me and asked me what my kids played with? I was stumped as my DD's barbie was white....so were her dolls! So I called my Jamaican friend....whose daughter also had white barbies! Neither of us had even thought about if our toys were multicultural before. The important thing was did our kids like them.

It's the same thing here. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can provide the stable caring loving home the kids desperately need.

Anti-immigration doesn't mean someone is racist. There's plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would feel the UK is full. Our house prices for starters. The lack (or perceived lack of) jobs maybe? Or what about the fact our water system down south cannot cope with the increase in population because of immigration.

Saying I think the UK is full so we shouldn't take more people in, is not the same as "I think white people are the best and black/brown people are not"

If this decision is based solely on political affiliation then it is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. What next? Maybe you won't be allowed to foster if you are a member of the Green party since you must be a lentil munching hippy and kids need to live in the real world? Or maybe if you are a Labour supporter then you clearly have no financial sense at all and kids need to have someone who won't go and spend all the money?

Pixel Sat 24-Nov-12 18:40:02

But there is no evidence they were imposing their views on the children. Just because they disagree with an open-door policy does not mean they have judgements about the individual children they are fostering. It is possible to separate the two things you know. You can think that these children are here and need all the love and care they can get, but still believe that there has to be a limit somewhere to how many more people this country can take. I'm sure lots of foster parents hold the same view whether they vote for UKIP or not.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Sat 24-Nov-12 18:50:15

It's the one British culture belief that does it for me not immigration as such. How can they embrace the diversity of these children and promote and understand their culture, if the subscribe to a group which believes they are not entitle to their own non British culture.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Sat 24-Nov-12 18:57:45

And not even their non British culture, their own British culture would may not even be in line with the one British culture ukip aspire to. My own British culture as a white, catholic Scottish woman may not even fit in with the one British culture and I would be concerned to allow my children to be fostered by a family who subscribe to such a notion. I would be interested hear the voices of the children's parents.

ariadneoliver Sat 24-Nov-12 19:08:28

As I mentioned in the other thread, the couple described themselves as former Labour voters, it's unlikely they suddenly had a massive volte face in their beliefs more that they felt that UKIP better represented their existing beliefs. To that extent if Rotherham didn't approve of the way this couple think, it should have done a better job exploring the issues when assessing them to become foster carers.

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 19:52:37

also, you can't assume these individuals subscribe to all UKIPs policy sheet - they may just want out of the EU.

not an extreme view.

Pixel Sat 24-Nov-12 20:14:19

True, I've got family members (through marriage) from Nigeria, China and Japan. It's never been an issue, all have been made welcome (although my chinese stepbrother is a miserable sod, I could do without him).

I still think we'd be better off out of the EU.
I might vote for UKIP next time.

EdgarAllanPond Sat 24-Nov-12 20:49:54

"

Could you imagine being sent to live with a family that didn't like white people and subtly made it clear. It would be awful for the dc to live like that. I'm glad ss have moved them."

it would be, however is there really reason to believe this couple were like that? membership of UKIP doesn't mean they were endlessly ranting about 'forriners taking our jobs' does it? that's just an assumption on the SS part, perhaps?

frankly a couple that were doing that would be too hate-filled to foster any children, wouldn't they?

"Me too I think its progress tbh"

progress? it rather put me in mind of the fact that my mothers adoption in 1960 was blocked by SS as it was 'out of class' - presumably thinking her adoptive mum would look down on her for being a lower class indiviudal (and also, unbelievably, that was an unresolvable mismatch). not a fair assumption.

Fosterangel Sat 24-Nov-12 21:01:51

At the end of the day (I know... old joke ..... the sun goes down!) these are just children who need someone who has been checked and checked again, as all foster carers are, and found to be safe enough to care for them. I doubt the lo's give a monkies about politics. I find it hard to believe that most foster carers do not have political views, religious views or views on things like being a vegetarian or going green to save the planet. The thing is that foster carers would never inflict their own views on their foster lo's. Children's needs for love and care are the same whatever their ethnicity or skin colour. None of the children I have fostered would understand the first thing about politics and trust me you are too tired to debate it with them.

In the world of Social Services I am guessing that everything has to be politically correct. In the real world we roll up our sleeves and actually do the foster caring and good carers (as these foster carers were said to be) continue to wipe bottoms and change wet beds and nurse poorly lo's as respectfully as is possible no matter what the lo's ethnicity.

Whatever happened to diversity - the foster carer's as well as the lo's!! It shouldn't be a one way street.

alemci Sat 24-Nov-12 23:45:06

why is it so important that the children's culture is paramount anyway. This is Britain. Do other European nations such as the French go on about multiculturalism in the way that we do here? Who dreamed it up in the first place.

It has all become rather silly.

Slateheart Sun 25-Nov-12 00:06:54

I think it's horrific. The people I know who vote ukip are most definatly not racist. Their circle of close friends confirms this.

I am not realy sure if the opinions of the parents realy count at the moment? Their Children were in care for a reason, they were thriving, settled, warm and fed.

I hope the truth comes out, as, as it stands it makes Rotheram council look the racist party.

picketywick Mon 26-Nov-12 14:09:45

If they abide by confidentiality rules, we may never know the whole story.

vesela Tue 27-Nov-12 08:54:12

I completely agree that if they hold racist views - even slightly racist views - they shouldn't be allowed to foster the children.

BUT - as EAP says - we don't know that they are racist. If you join a party, you are not signing up to all of its policies. I completely agree that wanting to end the promotion of multiculturalism is racist, but the point is that it's just one of UKIP's policies. When someone joins a party, there is no way of telling which of the party's policies they subscribe to, no way of forcing them to subscribe to any of them, and nor should there be. If you were the sort of person who lived and breathed Britain's withdrawal from the EU, you could easily want to join UKIP in the hope that you could get the policy on multiculturalism changed. In fact, I can imagine there might well be moves afoot to do just that.

As far as I can see, the only condition for joining UKIP is that you're not allowed to have previously been a member of the BNP etc.

"Membership is not available to anyone who is or has previously been a member of the British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party. Any applications made from people who are or have been members of these organisations will be refused, and any subscriptions collected will be refunded."

niceguy2 Tue 27-Nov-12 09:05:46

I completely agree that wanting to end the promotion of multiculturalism is racist

I disagree. Just because you don't promote it, it doesn't mean you are thereby racist.

Their policy on uni-culturism based upon fair play and democracy does not sound racist to me and as a member of an ethic minority myself UKIP don't bother me. There's a big difference between UKIP and BNP.

vesela Tue 27-Nov-12 09:29:26

niceguy - I think uni- and multi- as used by UKIP in its policy are pretty loaded terms, though, plus UKIP isn't suggesting a terribly nuanced policy on issues of multiculturalism and human rights. If it was, it would make that clear.

But the point is that, as Joyce Thacker has confirmed, UKIP's policy on multiculturalism was a factor in the decision. That means it may have tipped the balance. Rotherham Council assumed that, on the basis of the couple's UKIP membership, they subscribed to that policy.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Tue 27-Nov-12 09:54:54

I think the problem lies really in how this was managed by the social worker, after seeking legal advice I'm surprised she or he would suggest to the family that ukip hold racisit policies and so that is the reason for removing the children. After thinking about this more I'm not sure I completely stand by my original feelings that this was the correct decision, I feel the decision has been made for all the wrong reasons and so not really the best decision after all.

Veritate Sat 01-Dec-12 07:12:23

Predictably, it turns out there was much more to this story - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

For instance:

"The placement with the Ukip-supporting foster couple was not intended to be long-term. It was an emergency move amid allegations that the children's birth father had sexually abused two of his daughters and had held a knife to his wife's head while she was holding their baby. According to the birth parents, the children were taken in a raid by police and social workers earlier this year.

There were also fears the children's birth parents knew or might be able to find out where the foster parents lived. Though both the birth mother and father claim to continue to have supervised contact with some of their other children, it is believed social workers do not want the parents to know exactly where the children are living because of safety concerns."

alcofrolic Sat 01-Dec-12 14:11:36

Any rational person would have realised that there was more to it. Sadly, many voters in Rotherham don't seem to fall into this category, and the by-election results demonstrate the power of the popular sensationalist press.

(I bet the DM doesn't report the child protection issues.)

hackmum Sat 01-Dec-12 19:24:04

The reason I haven't commented on this before was that my first thought was "I bet there's more to it." The problem with stories like this is that the parents (or in this case foster parents) give their version and the social workers/council are forbidden from commenting on individual cases.

The key bit in the Guardian story seems to be this: "A family court judge ruled three of the children should be returned to the parents after the birth parents successfully argued that the council had failed in their duty to ensure the children enjoyed the linguistic right to learn and speak the language of their birth."

Time to make the family courts more open?

alemci Sat 01-Dec-12 22:21:30

wouldn't it be more advantageous for the children to learn to speak the language of the country they are living in.

alcofrolic Sun 02-Dec-12 00:09:56

How thoughtful alemci. Perhaps, while the children are getting over the trauma of terrible abuse and violence, they can fit in a few lessons in English.

Pixel Sun 02-Dec-12 01:05:32

I'm thoroughly confused now. Hackmum's post says the children are being returned to the parents. Do they mean the birth parents? But Veritate's post says that the children were taken from the birth parents due to the father abusing them. How many sets of parents are we talking about here?

flatpackhamster Sun 02-Dec-12 10:10:43

Veritate

Predictably, it turns out there was much more to this story - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

Predictably, the Guardian is lying through its evil teeth:

"In an interview, the father, along with his wife, told the Guardian the claims of sexual and physical abuse were unfounded. "We just want the children back and the social services to leave us alone. We just want to live as a normal family," said the father.

He said he was "disgusted" to learn that his children had been placed with foster carers who were members of a party opposed to eastern European immigration."

UKIP is not 'opposed to eastern European immigration'.

alemci Sun 02-Dec-12 11:28:43

well alcofrolic presumably they are here to stay. The parents sound like wonderful people

johnhemming Sun 02-Dec-12 19:55:47

There is also a question about the other children. This story has a number of loose ends. I know more than is in the public domain

johnhemming Sun 02-Dec-12 19:56:18

I intended to add "I know more than in the public domain, but not enough to come to a settled view."

Veritate Mon 03-Dec-12 22:28:14

flatpackhamster, the Guardian is quoting what the natural parents said - it's not trying to suggest that they were speaking the truth. The part I have quoted certainly bears the ring of truth.

tiggytape Wed 05-Dec-12 15:45:51

It is not uncommon for natural parent's to criticise the care their children receive in foster care. This is why foster carers log everything - they are often the subject of malicious allegations or complaints by natural parents trying to bolster their argument that the children are better off in their care
There are genuine complaints too of course but these often originate from natural parents wanting things done differently even if SS have told the foster carers to do things in a set way eg issues of day-to-day care or health issues).

I am not saying that is the case here just that it is in a natural parent’s interest to undermine the quality of foster care their child is receiving both to reinforce their own belief that SS got it wrong in taking them and also to improve their chances in courts that only rule with a child’s best interest in mind. It can lead to quite an adversarial process on both sides unfortunately.

Natural parents would not necessarily know anything more about the foster carers in this case than we do. They would not be able to pass comment on this couple’s personal beliefs anymore than we could but would have been told what we have been told – that the care of the children was exemplary and raised no concerns.

flatpackhamster Thu 06-Dec-12 09:00:27

Veritate

flatpackhamster, the Guardian is quoting what the natural parents said - it's not trying to suggest that they were speaking the truth. The part I have quoted certainly bears the ring of truth.

No it isn't. Look at the position of the quotation marks in the article.

I suspect the line of questioning went like this:

Guardian interviewer: "How do you feel when you discover that your children have been placed with a couple who are members of a party who want to murder immigrants and eat their babies?"

Romanian illegal immigrant: "I am disgusted."

flatpackhamster Fri 07-Dec-12 16:48:39

Apparently the Mail now has the Slovakian Roma parents claiming that Rotherham council are racist.

MrsDeVere Sun 09-Dec-12 17:32:42

Nothing to do with the recent election at all.
No indeed.
No cynical use of children in care here, nothing to see.
Nuh uh hmm

flatpackhamster Tue 11-Dec-12 08:39:21

Oh, you think UKIP planted the story in the media.

Bless.

MrsDeVere Tue 11-Dec-12 11:36:35

Awwwwww
You think you can patronise me.
Sweet.

flatpackhamster Wed 12-Dec-12 12:40:04

It's hard not to resist baiting conspiracy theorists. Maybe UKIP was working with the masons and the lizard people? Maybe you should start a blog on it!

MrsDeVere Wed 12-Dec-12 15:18:59

Try not to be silly. It's not exactly unknown for political parties to manipulate media stories before an election.
Is it dear?

flatpackhamster Wed 19-Dec-12 11:54:56

If you knew anything about UKIP's media operation you wouldn't make such an hilarious claim.

MrsDeVere Wed 19-Dec-12 15:14:30

Yeah. They are doing a fine job ATM.
Some sterling work. Fantastic PR.

I can see why you are do keen to champion them. What a thoroughly decent bunch of chaps they have turned out to be.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All that is thinly veiled sarcasm.
Incase you were wondering.

Fucking vile party.

flatpackhamster Fri 21-Dec-12 12:14:42

I don't think they're targetting your vote anyway. There are three parties already fighting for the votes of Guardian reading smuggards with a massive sense of entitlement.

MrsDeVere Fri 21-Dec-12 15:49:37

Yeah, that's me.
Default setting on MN if someone isn't a rabid right winger..lithe must be mc, guardian reading and detached from te real world.

If that's the best you can do, my fears that Ukip might actually get anywhere are rapidly diminishing.

Thanks for the reassurance

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now